I asked why Bruno de Solages never refers to the minor agreements by the
term "minor agreements."
Tim Reynolds asked,
"What does he call them?"
and Emmanuel Fritsch asked,
"[W]hat is the position of Solages about the Synoptic problem?"
Actually, de Solages does "call" them anything, if by that we mean, Does
he have a technical term? His most frequent denotation for them is
"Field 3," which refers to the space that the minor agreement count
occupies in his statistical charts.
And as for his solution to the synoptic problem, de Solages arrives at
the Two-Source theory, except that he never calls it the "Two-Source
theory," and he never refers to Q as "Q" (he calls it "X").
It is this avoidance of accepted terminology that I'm wondering about.
De Solages doesn't quote other scholarship (other than his teachers and
colleagues), so one suspects that some sort of tunnel vision is to blame
(not unlike Enoch Powell's book). Yet the way in which he arrives at
the Two-Source theory is so problematic that one suspects that he had
that theory as his goal.
For a damning critique of de Solages's procedure, see the discussion in
chapter one of Robert Morgenthaler's *Statistische Synopse*.
John C. Poirier
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...